User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 32

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Babysitter
Just a heads up to watchlist Lipizzan if you don't already. We have another eastern European nationalist popping up over there who may eventually need a cluebat. Minor stuff so far, here's hoping. Montanabw (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hunting for ...
An article in the Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law new series - by R. A. Aronstam "Recovering Hucarius: A Historiographical Study in Early English Canon Law" volume 5, 1975, pp. 117-122. This is for a hopeful article on Hucarius and to figure out which works of his were once ascribed to Ecgbert (bishop). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this article from the Journal of Ecclesiastical History (which, along with the Journal of Medieval History should REALLY be in JSTOR). Also for Hucarius (Huscarius) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Email for you – I got the second item you wanted, but don't have access to the first, hope it helps anyway. Nortonius (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Church architecture in Scotland
Many thanks for a very helpful GA review. Much appreciated.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

More begging...
This article please??? Im begging... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Email for you, hope it's what you want… Nortonius (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was very helpful. Saved me 45 pounds! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, good – if I could do that every time I'd be onto something! Nortonius (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William de Courcy (died circa 1114), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richard de Courcy
Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William de Courcy (died circa 1114)
Allen3 talk 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Its me again...
To work on Edgar the Ætheling, I'd greatly appreciate the following articles:


 * this
 * this
 * this
 * this

Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Email for you – got them all this time, but usual caveats apply! Nortonius (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh thank you. And the article will eventually thank you too... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a nice thought! Nortonius (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oxbow!
Oxbow (horse) just was promoted to FA! Thanks for your help during the pre-FAC prep, it was much appreciated! Montanabw (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

GA promotion
Congratulations! The review follows. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Mainpage disambiguation...
Now it'd be cool to have a twin mainpage on Psaltoda plaga and Edward, the Black Prince one day....I have been involved in buffing another cicada which will probably head to FAC soon so figure this is achievable sometime next year maybe...(chuckle) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Chat with User:Hchc2009 about the Black Prince. He's working forward in history and I'm working backwards ... I did William the Conqueror and now I need to work on Harold Godwinson, Edgar the Ætheling, and Edward the Confessor. (Somewhere along the way I gotta tackle William Rufus too, but I left Henry I of England to Hchc...(speaking of that, Hchc... aren't you due to do Empress Matilda?) And User:Nev1 volunteered for Richard I of England... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Empress is not forgotten! I'm just trying to finish off Henry III in userspace, then I'll spruce up Matilda a bit. :) I need to take Henry II through FA as well at some point... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another begging beg...

 * this
 * this
 * this


 * Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Email for you. Nortonius (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you so much! Roger Norreis thanks you too... if that rather bad boy could do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sort of a bishop
Well, it was issued by the Prince-Bishopric of Basel. It's from my coin image source. I know a little outside your area, but I thought you'd appreciate it nevertheless.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. I love looking at old coins, I just can't get into actually collecting the things... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer writing, it's cheaper and less of an insurance bill.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Empress Matilda
Dear Ealdgyth,

Thank you for your concern whilst undoing my edit, however, it was entirely unwarranted. Historian Helen Castor in her book She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth states clearly a fact that has been oft-mentioned by other historians of the period, that Edith of Scotland (later Matilda) was a descendant of the House of Wessex (otherwise known as the House of Cerdic). Henry I's marriage to Matilda thus strengthened his position to the throne. Please do not assume that a source does not say something. If you doubt a source, discover it for yourself. As it so happens, Helen Castor is a respected historian and former lecturer at the University of Cambridge, her statements upon history are in no doubt. Thank you. 81.129.219.29 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is the only material in question, I can confirm that it is indeed on page 44 of Cantor as cited. Whether it's relevant is another matter—virtually every royal house in Europe was and is related to every other. Cantor claims her Cerdic blood combined with descent from Billy gave her "the right to rule twice over", but her descent was through Edward the Exile, not Godwin, and any claim based on it would have been taken about as credibly as Franz of Bavaria's claim to be the legitimate King of England today. She-Wolves is a worthy skim, but is a piece of introductory pop-history which makes no claim to be a serious reference work; favouring it over more serious works would be giving a fringe view undue weight. – iridescent  21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a typical problem with popular histories written by historians; they're usually a lot better than no source at all, but they need to be handled quite carefully, as they are deliberately aimed at a popular audience, and therefore typically won't spell out the differences of opinion between historians or the ambiguities of what we don't know, will gloss the difficult issues, often won't give sources etc. Definitely to be used with care. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that improving the Norman descent from Anglo-Saxon royalty was not a significant concern in Henry I's marriage is surely completely wrong. Edward the Exile, son of a king, & declared his heir by Edward the Confessor, was a much better person to be descended from than the interloper Godwins in a Wessex legitimist perspective. There may not be much documentation, any more than the undoubted motives for Henry VII marrying Margaret of York were publicly declared. No doubt this was still a relevant factor a generation later.  This must be very easy to reference from any class of reference, but Castor seems adequate for the moment.  Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But the discussion on Henry's motivation for the marriage fits best on Henry's page ... not the daughter's. Also, it's not Cantor (i.e. Norman Cantor) but Helen Castor's popular history book being used here. But I was much more concerned that someone was shoehorning information into an already cited sentence - 9 times out of 10, when that happens, the information is not actually in the citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My typo. Mathilda isn't my thing, but I would imagine Wessex continuation was enough of an issue in her situation to be worth mentioning somewhere, and to be found in your preferred sources. Here's something by the specialist David Crouch (historian). Iridescent might also look at pp 286-287 on the perceived scruffiness of the Norman lineage. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hchc and I divided the monarchs... I took Rufus and earlier and he's got Henry I and after ... mainly because I couldn't stomach doing Henry I. (And he's clearly best qualified to do Matilda, since he's already done Stephen and Henry II). He's doing a magnificant job too. Now I just need to get off my behind and get cracking on Harold Godwinson... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite subtle, and I'll need to work through it. Henry I's choice of wife was definitely influenced by her ancestry; how important that was to contemporaries' views of the Empress, I'm less certain; I've done a quick run-through Chibnall, and it's not jumping out at me, for example. Either way, it may have to wait until I've finished my current one! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings
"The English army consisted entirely of infantry. It is possible that some of the higher class members of the army rode to battle, but when battle was joined they dismounted to fight on foot.[k] The core of the army was made up of housecarls, full-time professional soldiers. Their armour consisted of a conical helmet, a mail hauberk, and a shield, which might be either kite-shaped or round.[65] Most housecarls fought with the two-handed Danish battleaxe, but they could also carry a sword.[66] The rest of the army was made up of infantry, with some archers and perhaps lightly armoured troops as well." Eric  Corbett  13:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be "The rest of the army was made up of the levies from the fyrd, which were also infantry but lighter armoured and not professionals. Some would have been archers, with perhaps some lightly armoured troops as well." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed that. The article looks pretty good I think, quite ready for FAC. Eric   Corbett  14:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm a bit late to the party with this, but about English forces at Hastings, I saw the above about the English army consisting entirely of infantry, and thought to look at what the article actually says about English horses. Thing is, when I was looking at the history of the horse in Britain for Pesky last year, I found that apparently the English army had been "strong in cavalry" at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, and that it was a "tactical decision" not to deploy cavalry at Hastings. This was news to me, and I'd studied the period at postgraduate level! But not specifically the English military or the Battle of Hastings. Maybe have a look at the history of the horse in Britain article (towards the end of this section) and see what you think? Use it or not by all means, I don't mean to lumber you with extra, potentially controversial stuff at this late stage but thought I ought to point it out! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This opinion hasn't been taken up by most of the rest of the scholars on the subject, it doesn't appear. Most scholars acknowledge that the AS armies used horses for movement, it is just that they appear to have not developed a true shock role for the cavalry. The sources (both contemporary and modern) are very clear that the English army at Hastings was mainly infantry - so that's not something controversial. I can't see that one mention in a newspaper article has been taken up by the scholars of the subject - so I'm quite comfortable leaving it out. When I started working on this whole complex of articles .. I went back and reread the stuff I had used in college as well as reading the newer stuff that had come out since I left... so I'm pretty comfortable with being in touch with the mainstream of scholars on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep that's fine, honestly I wouldn't have touched this article with a barge pole so as you like is fine by me! The bit about a "tactical decision" was an idea that intrigued me when I came across it, interesting that you didn't find anyone's picked up on it since that newspaper article from 1999 – maybe it was a fringe idea to start with, albeit from a PhD student (wonder if she completed!), and there are enough fringe ideas about this battle as it is. I wonder about Morillo's "strong in cavalry" at Stamford Bridge though – it looks like a reasonable source regarding the make-up of the English army generally… But I'm just thinking aloud there, ignore me by all means, you've done all the background reading and it's not like I'm going to be following that up myself any time soon! Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, thinking of the Norman Conquest, something else I've found quite helpful in medieval musings is this… Nortonius (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

GA proposal
Hi, would you like to elaborate on your !vote? :) -- Gilderien Chat&#124;What I've done 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

War Horses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_warfare Would including this information in external links or sources or creating a new Operation Enduring Freedom section be more appropriate? SarahPML (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really too specialized a link in subject matter compared to the subject matter of the article. I note that you're adding lots and lots of links to this online source - and that the Pritzer Military Library is also in your username. This strongly implies that you're trying to drive viewers towards this particular site - which is probably not a great idea and could run afoul of Wikipedia's COI guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Meschin
Orlady (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Robert of Hereford
You've done many articles about medieval bishops and I'd like a bit of advice/opinion on changing the title of a Wikipedia article. I'm wondering whether the article Robert of Hereford shouldn't be moved to a better article title? He was a bishop of Hereford, but he is better known by other names. Wikisource's Dictionary of National Biography article and Crockford's Clerical Directory  call him Robert Losinga. The website findagrave.com has an image of a sign in Hereford Cathedral which says Robert de Losinga or Lotharingia. The Oxford National Dictionary Biography and Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae  name him Robert the Lotharingian. And the Handbook of British Chronology (page 250)has him as Robert of Lorraine. Wikipedia has some of the early bishops as "NN of Hereford", but only to disambiguate them from others with the same name. I'm sure the Robert of Hereford article is not best title to use, but not sure which of the others is best to use. – Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Of the ones you've listed, the ODNB, Handbook, and Fasti are the best sources - Barlow English Church 1066-1154 gives Robert Losinga, Douglas William the Conqueror gives Robert Losinga, Bates William the Conqueror gives Robert, Bishop of Hereford, Barlow William Rufus gives Robert Losinga, Mason William Rufus gives Robert Losinga, Vaughn Anselm of Bec and Robert of Meulan gives Robert Bishop of Hereford, Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings gives Robert de Losinga, Cantor Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture gives Robert Bishop of Hereford, Barlow Edward the Confessor gives Robert Losinga. I'd say either "Robert the Lotharingian" or "Robert Losinga" would work. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've opted with moving it to Robert the Lotharingian, the one used by ODNB and fasti. Incidentally, I've edited the Herbert de Losinga article, which had given the idea that Robert de Losinga (the Lotharingian) was his father, but that was another Robert de Losinga who later became abbot of New Minster, Winchester. They all maybe related or just came from the same area. – Scrivener-uki (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

GAR
--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)